Trekker4747 said:
Does anyone else wonder why they're finishing the interiror when they've not yet completed the exterior and why they've already painted on the hull markings before they've even finished building the damn thing?

Click to expand...

It's an idiotTrek tradition, like why they have decorative art in the refit before they've even TESTED the engines at warp power. And let's not even get started on the EnterpriseTues-B ...

Trekker4747 said:
Does anyone else wonder why they're finishing the interiror when they've not yet completed the exterior and why they've already painted on the hull markings before they've even finished building the damn thing?

Click to expand...

It's an idiotTrek tradition, like why they have decorative art in the refit before they've even TESTED the engines at warp power. And let's not even get started on the EnterpriseTues-B ...

Click to expand...

Well, when you consider that the fabricated parts are probably replicated, why not replicate the livery on them, so as soon as they're installed, you don't have to paint but the seams after they're welded.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this - and I'm famous for my automotive analogies . Why couldn't Kirk first encounter a carbon copy - or at least a ship that is clearly the original ship and not simply based upon its silhouette? When we talk about automotive analogies, I'd go with the new Dodge Challenger more than the Camaro - the 2008 has nearly every line of the 1970 original in evidence, and yet not one single line is common between the two cars; they've managed to make a clean, modern car without abandoning what made the original a classic, retaining the details in spirit even though they don't actually match the original blueprints. This is what I love about Vektor's latest model of Enterprise: it's clearly the original ship, not the motion picture version, not a BSG version, nor anything else, even though it probably doesn't share a single line or contour with the TV model.

The new 2008 Camaro is a TMP Enterprise, and from what I see in this one shot of the 2008 Enterprise, it is, too. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing - the TMP ENT was my favorite version of the Gray Lady until last week. But I disagree with any assertion that the real, original design of the ship is somehow implausible in this day and age and on the big screen; it just needs a little tweaking, not reimagining.

Click to expand...

I should have phrased that better.

Let's say a movie was made this year, but set in 1970. One of the characters gets his first car, and it happens to be a Dodge Challenger.

However, instead of the 1970 model, in its place they use the 2008 model.

The argument: "The new Challenger has the same lines as the original, but it's more modern for a 2008 audience."

The difference being that there's no 23rd century for the movie to be set in, any more than there's an historical Krypton for Kal-El to fall from.

Ergo, there's no more or less restriction on redesigning the fictional 23rd century than there has been in redesigning Krypton every few years since the beginning of "Superman" in the comics - and the reason to do so in both cases is simply to update the property to suit evolving tastes and expectations (as well as to let creative comic book and film artists be artists and designers rather than human photocopiers).

My favorite Krypton, BTW, remains Wayne Boring's - from that period of time when he was having all the men on the planet wear those transparent "Saturn's rings" hats.

Let's say a movie was made this year, but set in 1970. One of the characters gets his first car, and it happens to be a Dodge Challenger.

However, instead of the 1970 model, in its place they use the 2008 model.

The argument: "The new Challenger has the same lines as the original, but it's more modern for a 2008 audience."

Is that more clear?

Click to expand...

That is not an accurate analogy, because the 1970 are an actual time period and Star Trek's 2360ies aren't.

However, things like that happen, the "hero car" in "Gone in 60 seconds" was supposed to be a muscle car from the late 1960ies, but they didn't go with the original look of the car, but used a modernized version.

Sean_McCormick said:
That is not an accurate analogy, because the 1970 are an actual time period and Star Trek's 2360ies aren't.

Click to expand...

It most certainly is, in story terms.

However, things like that happen, the "hero car" in "Gone in 60 seconds" was supposed to be a muscle car from the late 1960ies, but they didn't go with the original look of the car, but used a modernized version.

Click to expand...

Was Gone in 60 seconds SET in the 1960s?

If a movie SET in the 1960s uses a car designed in the 2000s, it's WRONG.

I'm convinced the whole teaser sequence is not going to be in the finished film, just for the trailer only. It's been done before, and recently. ILM did a BEAUTIFUL fly-by of Iron Man for that film's trailer, admitting the shot wasn't in the film, just done for the trailer (they say BETTER stuff is actually in the film *drool drool*) As far as the design, I think it's OK so far, but I've only seen 15% of the ship. Let's not get too hasty until we've seen the whole thing. I must admit, though, she DOES look like a technical progression from ENTERPRISE, which is OK for me (I'm a season 3-4 fan). I'm one of the wackos that thinks ENTERPRISE veered into an alternate timeline because of the temporal Cold War, so, I'm thinking that this film is TOS-alternate. This especially makes sense if one knows of the involvement of Nimoy's Spock and what he does in this film. (speculation) I see some tips of the hat to Mr. Probert so far and that makes me happy.

Starship Polaris said:
The difference being that there's no 23rd century for the movie to be set in, any more than there's an historical Krypton for Kal-El to fall from.

Ergo, there's no more or less restriction on redesigning the fictional 23rd century than there has been in redesigning Krypton every few years since the beginning of "Superman" in the comics - and the reason to do so in both cases is simply to update the property to suit evolving tastes and expectations (as well as to let creative comic book and film artists be artists and designers rather than human photocopiers).

Click to expand...

Hmmm... "human photocopiers"...

So why don't these artists and writers simply start with a completely clean sheet of paper, instead of capitalizing on the STAR TREK name?

If you want to see the 2008 Camaro and you don't have time for a 1970 Camaro, then there's nothing wrong with making a NEW TREK with new characters, no Starship Enterprise with "NCC-1701" on the hood, no Jim Kirk, no Spock, etc.

Addy said:
No, it's a fine analogy because the 23rd century is as much a real time period in Star Trek's universe as the 1970s are in our universe.

Click to expand...

There is only one known Universe, one known physical reality.

It's the one we live in and are part of.

"Star Trek" takes place in a fictional continuity. For shorthand it's referred to as a "universe." The word usage does not signify that it exists on the same terms as or is equivalent in any way to what we call the Universe.

The phrase "a real time period in Star Trek's universe" is self-contradictory nonsense and drivel.

Any attempt to equate Trek's continuity with reality is logically absurd, untenable and unworthy of respect as a foundation for reasoning. And that is what "it's real in Trek's universe" does.

...but this film gets made in our universe and not in the Star Trek one so in the universe, in which the film gets made, the 2260ies aren't real.

Forbin, no 60 seconds was contemporary, what i wanted to show is, that this car is supposed to be a classic from 30 years ago in that film, yet they couldn't let it stand as it was but felt the need to "sex it up" for the 1998(?) audience, which is what seems to have happened to our favourite starship.

That most of us here would prefer to see the ship exactly as it appeared in "The Cage" does not change the fact, that the creatives behind that movies felt, that the "general audience" would not accept a 40 year old design in the film and that they had to ""improve"" it.

Starship Polaris said:
The difference being that there's no 23rd century for the movie to be set in, any more than there's an historical Krypton for Kal-El to fall from.

Ergo, there's no more or less restriction on redesigning the fictional 23rd century than there has been in redesigning Krypton every few years since the beginning of "Superman" in the comics - and the reason to do so in both cases is simply to update the property to suit evolving tastes and expectations (as well as to let creative comic book and film artists be artists and designers rather than human photocopiers).

Click to expand...

Hmmm... "human photocopiers"...

So why don't these artists and writers simply start with a completely clean sheet of paper, instead of capitalizing on the STAR TREK name?

If you want to see the 2008 Camaro and you don't have time for a 1970 Camaro, then there's nothing wrong with making a NEW TREK with new characters, no Starship Enterprise with "NCC-1701" on the hood, no Jim Kirk, no Spock, etc.

Click to expand...

That's the logical trap that's gonna get you labeled a "troublemaker" by the "kewl kids" in here, and get them hitting "report to mod" every time you make a post. Trust me, I know allll about that. There are a half-dozen or so folks in here who'll try ANYTHING to get ME kicked off the BBS. And at least one mod who'll gladly play along. (NOT PTrope, mind you!)

Your logic is inescapable. The argument is "we don't want to be tied down to what's been done before" but the other half of the argument is "we need it to be what came before to get people to come."

It's a classic "bait and switch" argument. The basis of this argument is "you get the people to start watching by fooling them into thinking they're going to see something that they know, then once they've paid to see it, you give them what YOU want to give them, not what they're expecting."

It's about ego ("we can do it better") but also about deceit ("they won't come to see it if I call it something new, so I'll trick them into coming by telling them it's something old. Once I've got their money, they'll have no choice but to sit through it. And since my idea is so much better than the original, they'll decide that my IMPROVEMENTS should replace that old, stale version that they remember.")

Most of what I've seen for this film... script, casting, etc... has been promising. But this uncalled-for ship redesign has put a bad taste into my mouth, and taken what's been a pretty positive perspective on the show overall and turned it into a more cautious one. I'm not sure about anything now.

I know that there are folks who'll argue that it's not important. The answer to them is "so why change it?" There will be other folks who hate the original and want it changed. The answer to them is "so why call it the Enterprise at all?"

Ultimately, this is going to result in the new movie being treated much like the "Lost in Space" movie... as a separate piece. Except in the case of Lost in Space, both the TV show and the movie were abortions. In this case, the TV show is a classic, and we don't know WHAT the movie will be like. But it will inevitably cause a split in the mythos... fans arguing forever after about "which continuity" we're talking about... people choosing sides and fighting. Flame wars, etc.

It's pointless, counterproductive, and ultimately destructive. It may not mean that the film will be a success or a failure, but it will very likely put the final nails into the coffin of classic Trek fandom.

There are those who post here who'll take HUGE pleasure in that, too... and we know who they are.

My prediction is that they will show a highly detailed but otherwise exact version of our beloved classic 1701 at the very end of the movie, probably rebuilt after the epic battle with the bad guys (whoever they will be). So really the only "canon" that gets violated will be the first pilot episode with Pike.